The Moddie Experience! wrote:The meanings of words adapt and develop all the time as they have to. "most unique" might sound like a tautology but it isn't. If all the cities are similar but there's one which is quite different to the rest then of course it can be described as "most unique".To argue otherwise is to misunderstand the way language works. So there!

Speaking of things that are redundant, that was a stupid thing The Modernist just said.

toomanyhatz wrote:Pedantic, I know, but I think his point was that the definition of "unique" is that there's only one- therefore something can't be "most" unique- it's either unique or it isn't.

yer kidding me, right? what bullcrap. i was sitting here about to explain how uniqueness is indeed a relative concept, when i realized i'd rather make a cheesecake.

I blame Goldwax.No way I'd ever be so neurotic and petty.

Although he's right. And it's always been a pet peeve of mine. Uniqueness is technically not a relative concept, though it's often used that way.

But I have many things I'd rather be neurotic and petty about, personally.

And I'd like a slice of that cheesecake when you're done, too.

I have a feeling that Kath makes the most unique cheesecake ever, so sign me up for a slice next time she makes one! (Unless this is the onliest time she makes one. )

uh huh.

so we begin with a dictionary, and an entry for unique...

Function: adjectivePronunciation: yu-'nekEtymology: French, from Latin unicus, from unus one -- more at ONE 1 : being the only one : SOLE <his unique concern was his own comfort> <I can't walk away with a unique copy. Suppose I lost it? -- Kingsley Amis> <the unique factorization of a number into prime factors> 2 a : being without a like or equal : UNEQUALED <could stare at the flames, each one new, violent, unique -- Robert Coover> b : distinctively characteristic : PECULIAR 1 <this is not a condition unique to California -- Ronald Reagan> 3 : UNUSUAL <a very unique ball-point pen> <we were fairly unique, the sixty of us, in that there wasn't one good mixer in the bunch -- J. D. Salinger>

ok, now, my chocolate cheesecake. say someone ate a piece and thought it stood out or (as i'm sure you'd prefer the first, strict defininition above) it stood alone from the rest of cheesecakery because of the extra amount of hershey's cocoa i add in. say hatz eats it, and decides the uniqueness comes from the dose of amoretto i add to the mashed up graham cracker crust, my own secret recipe (burp). say the baron takes a bite, and he thinks it is unique because of the extra-fresh brown eggs i use in the gloop (brown eggs are infinitely superior to white, folk). say reap, after tasting it, thinks it is unique because of the double dash of lemon... or the extra cream cheese, or the extra vanilla... all of which are unique aspects when compared to the standard recipe.

obviously, what makes something unique for someone is subjective, variable and debatable, right? this part of it is a given.

ok, now imagine my cheesecake is entered in a cheesecake competition on the food network, hosted by alton brown (why? because i love alton brown, that's fucquin why.) there are a thousand cheesecakes, with twenty thousand variable aspects, ripe for the tasting and judging. say fifty of these cheesecakes are ones i find 'unique' for one reason or another. if i decide i wanna prize originality and deviation from standard recipedom the most, then it would be quite understandable if i were to value the cheesecake that had the highest number of unique elements, which, on my scale, could be called the most unique cheesecake.

if a cheesecake has twenty variables... how many variables ripe for the judging and prizing does an entire city have? if i believe the architecture is unique (and it is), or the food is unique (yep), or the music is unique (oui), or the food-as-religion is unique (amen), or the people themselves as a group are unique (hell yeah), or even the content in yer standard grocery store is unique (like the gallons of tequila or the frozen turducken or boudreaux's butt paste)... then does it not follow that i could call new orleans the most unique; i.e., has the highest number of unique qualities in one place?

i think it follows thusly.

oh, and my original cheesecake is long gone to crumbalia heaven, but i would gladly make another one just for yew... as long as ya promise not to be uberly anal-retentive for one damn day of yer life.

goldwax wrote:It doesn't matter how many variables there are in cheesecakery: A cheesecake can be more delicious, more original, more adventurous, even, at a stretch, more special, but it cannot be more unique than another. Why? Because a cheesecake is either unique (actually ALL cheesecakes are technically unique, but even I'm not that anal) or it is not. A thing cannot be more "one of a kind" than another thing. To say that it can be is to distort and even destroy the very meaning of the phrase "one of a kind." We may be sloppy when making cheesecake and still get a wonderful result, but we should take more care with our language. After all, words do have meaning. If not, there's no sense in having words all. Now, I'm all in favor of words shifting in meaning (or more accurately, I accept it), but I think we should hold the line when that shifting of meaning renders the true and original meaning null and void.

If we decide that we do want to avoid sloppiness in our language--and by extension, our thinking--then we should do the extra work and use words that truly mean what we want to say. New Orleans isn't the most unique city in the world, but it might very well be the most exciting, the most intoxicating, the most varied, or the most culturally important. One of those words--or perhaps another, because I truly don't know what you do mean to say when you call New Orleans the most unique city in the world---will convey a more accurate sense of what you want to say, in a way that the fuzzy "most unique" fails to do.

you are an asspickle, darlin.

asspickle = not in the dictionary, of course, although the word components are.

mind ya, i am not using these components in the exact, precise way the dictionary might define them (and you do so conveniently ignore those dictionary definitions for "unique" that are not to yer a-r liking).

since i am doing this, shifting my language at whim and however i see fit, surely i must be indulging in "sloppy", "fuzzy" lingo (and by extension, sloppy, fuzzy thought), which in turn denigrates the fine, upstanding, pureblood, thoroughbred english Language (with a capital 'ell). this activity will certainly consign my muttish ass to linguistic capitol 'ell, along with every damn heretic who abuses the language to such extremes as to use the dreadful phrase, "most unique", when obviously this phrase makes NO sense to anyone with a clear, concise, textbook-primed, dictionary-licquing brain.

oh my. however shall i live with my fucquin self? maybe by being more one of a kind than the person sitting next to me?

but a word of caution: you may wanna be a bit more careful with yer own sloppy, fuzzy logic. the whole "words do have meaning--if not, there's no sense in having words at all" line of thought~~as an argument against my using a phrase you think is imprecise~~borders on laughable. where do i begin the beguine? oversimplification? cause and effect probs? slippery slope? either/or? the fallacies abound in a most unique manner.

wait... on second thought, they are not really most unique. they're as common as they come.

but no matter. i shall sling my lingo like i sling my cheesecake. either come to the party ready to get messy, or don't come at all. just don't think for a second that i'm gonna actually listen to you when ya tell me how to sling it. if i get in the mood to hire yet another editor just so i can shoot him in the ass, i'll let ya know.

Aside from the suggestion that you two take this elsewhere- Nextdoorland is well-suited for this kind of stuff- I must begrudgingly admit that Kath and Moddie are, technically, correct. If you use the last dictionary definition of unique- having unusual qualities- it's perfectly acceptable to qualify it. One city or cheesecake or whatever can have more different unusual qualities than another, and hence be more unique.

Mind you, that doesn't mean I have to like it. I think it's more a case of surrender than correctness. In fact I think I may have even read somewhere that this is now considered correct- the final definition added- primarily because people were using it that way.

I agree this is how language works- it changes based on how it's used- but I think this is a clear case of an incorrect usage being accepted. "Ain't" is in the dictionary now, you know. It's going to stay a pet peeve.

But let's move continued discussions about it next door, shall we?

Jimbo wrote:My point is to save the world from WWIII.

Jimbo wrote:Trump is right. The collusion conspiracy theory has been debunked and you seem to refuse to look at the evidence.

um, help me out here. which is the nasty part? pointing out that yer own logic is sloppy and fuzzy, or threatening to hire you as my editor?

See above. I added to my post.

i still don't see it. you added that i don't take criticism well and that i'm lashing out, but you haven't shown me where i'm being nasty. is it "asspickle"? i've called you that before, ya know, and ya didn't get all bent then. i even added "darlin" after it.

how is my post nasty? because i think yer logic is bogus? because i implied i shot one of my editors in the ass? i didn't, although i seriously considered it. he mangled my dictionary of literary biography entry. you think i'm unreadable now. you should've seen what he did to it.

yer logic is bogus for many reasons. "words have meaning"... well, yes they do... they even have many meanings, meanings that change over time, too. i went though all this with the baron. a word's meaning is not etched in stone, a test with one and only one answer key (that key being the one meaning you have in yer own head.) i've already given a dictionary definition for unique, and you opted for the "reading" you prefer, and you conveniently disregarded the others. to say that if words' meanings vary, shift, are imprecisely used, differ, etc, we need to throw out the entire english language, well, honestly, that DOES represent logical fallacy on many fronts. is pointing that out nasty?

is saying i'll sling it how i like it nasty? or saying that i don't listen to folk when they tell me how i should sling my own thing?

how is anything i said any different from you talking about my imprecise use of the phrase, or yer sarcasm, or yer, hmm, condescending critcism about implicitly "learning" me proper style? (and i think *anyone* who tries to tell someone what proper linguistic style is without being solicited for it first is implicitly condescending.)

toomanyhatz wrote:But let's move continued discussions about it next door, shall we?

oops. a thousand pardons. i was just trying to respond to goldwax's post prior. hadn't seen yers.

i will :::zip::: it then. and if anything i said to goldwax turns folk off of choosing to jolly in new orleans, then i will not only beat myself repeatedly with cherry licorice, i'll go out of the country next memorial day for shame.

toomanyhatz wrote:But let's move continued discussions about it next door, shall we?

oops. a thousand pardons. i was just trying to respond to goldwax's post prior. hadn't seen yers.

i will :::zip::: it then. and if anything i said to goldwax turns folk off of choosing to jolly in new orleans, then i will not only beat myself repeatedly with cherry licorice, i'll go out of the country next memorial day for shame.